Pages

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Following the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi which killed tens of people and injured hundreds more, we in Hizb ut Tahrir East Africa, the political party whose ideology is Islam are shocked and sad-dened by this event and would like to highlight the following issues:

Firstly, the attack has clearly shown the deterioration of security in Kenya. Before this attack, we had witnessed the killing of citizens in various areas like Mandear, Bungoma and Garissa. Also, for residents of major towns in Kenya, it is normal to be harassed by criminals on a daily basis. This is an evidence of failure by the security apparatus to protect the public. Most people are questioning that if the step the government took in sending its troops to Somalia in the Linda Nchi operation was intended to ensure security in the coun-try, then why are such attacks happening? Certainly, the Hizb views that the step was taken under political pressure from western governments especially Britain and America which aimed at installing their agents in Somalia so as to plunder its resources and enhance all manner of evils.

Secondly, major media organizations changed the face of the event. It had earlier been reported that the attack was undertaken by gangsters but after several hours, the story was changed to a terrorist attack after Al-Jazeera reported that Al-Shabaab had claimed responsibility. This has clearly shown that Westerners con-trol major media organizations and use them to tarnish Islam and create hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims. This is dangerous as it is easy to plunge the country into religious violence. It is clear from this that according to the media killings done by some Muslims are terrorism but when done by non-Muslims, it is not linked to religion or called terrorism. It reminds us of the attack in July 2012 that killed 42 police officers in Baragoi which was never associated with terrorism by the press. The Hizb states that all terrorism and acts of thuggery are against Islam. However, the West has given the term 'terrorism' a special meaning that suits them. Anyone who is against the interests of Capitalists is branded a terrorist. Evidence for this is that Britain branded Mau Mau fighters as terrorists because they opposed the injustices of the British colonialists. Like-wise, as Islam is an ideology that clashes with the Capitalist ideology, it follows that all Muslims who op-pose injustices and corruption of the evil Capitalist ideology even if only by words are branded terrorists.

Thirdly, from this attack, it has exposed the lies by Western leaders who pretend to cry crocodile tears for the deaths of women and children while their hands are dripping with the blood of millions of women, chil-dren and elderly in countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. These leaders are the ones who patronize and give permission to their puppets in Muslim countries to use chemical weapons against the public as is being done by their puppet Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. Another of their hypocrisy is while Kenyans are congregating in several centers to donate blood to help the injured, these leaders are urging their citizens to avoid crowded areas and not to leave their houses because of security reasons. They therefore care for the security of their citizens and not that of Kenyan citizens. Also, they are issuing travel advisories to their citizens that because of lack of security, they should not enter Kenya while at the same time not issuing advisories to close their Multinationals which continue to plunder Kenyan resources.

In conclusion, the Hizb states that terrorism is another scapegoat by the West to enter Africa including Kenya to plunder its resources. Their Capitalist ideology has failed to bring peace and security in the whole world. This ideology which divides people along party, religious and tribal lines will continue to destabilize peace as currently witnessed in the world. The main objective of the 'war on terror' is to stop the rise of Islam to lead the world as an ideology which is a complete way of life and a solution to all mankind's problems. For 13 centuries, Islam ruled and succeeded in spreading peace, security and uniting society without regard for religion, race, tribe or status.

The following is the translation of an article from the book by Hizb ut-Tahrir entitled 'Introduction to the Constitution and the necessary evidences for it' which is the explanation of its draft constitution for the Khilafah state. This draft translation is from the second edition published in 2009 which was updated from the original published in 1963. Numerous brigades in Syria have agreed to the implementation of this constitution after the removal of the corrupt system that has brutally suppressed the people for decades.

Article 3

The Khalifah
adopts specific Shari’ah rules which he will enact as a constitution and
laws. If he adopts a Shari’ah rule, this rule alone becomes the Shari’ah
rule that must be acted upon and it becomes a binding law that every citizen
must obey openly and privately.

The evidence of this article is derived from the Ijma’
(General Consensus) of the Companions that the Khalifah reserves the
right to adopt specific Shari’ah rules. It has also been established in
the same manner that it is obligatory to act upon the rules adopted by the Khalifah.
The Muslim is not permitted to act upon any rule other than what the Khalifah
has adopted in terms of rules even if these rules were Shari’ah rules
adopted by one of the Mujtahideen (scholars of Islam). This is so
because the rule of Allah that becomes duly binding upon all the Muslims is
what the Khalifah adopts. The rightly guided Khulafaa’ proceeded
in this manner; they adopted a host of specific rules and ordered their
implementation. Thus the Muslims, with all of the Companions amongst them, used
to act upon these rules and to abandon their own Ijtihad (Islamic
opinion derived from the Islamic evidences). For instance, Abu Bakr (ra)
adopted in the matter of divorce a rule stipulating that the triple divorce
would be considered as one divorce if it were pronounced in one sitting. He
also adopted in the matter of distributing the wealth upon the Muslims a rule
stipulating that wealth should be distributed equally amongst the Muslims,
regardless of seniority in Islam or anything else. The Muslims followed him in
this as well as the judges and the Walis (governors) implemented the rules
that he had adopted. When Umar (ra) took office, he adopted other opinions
different to those of Abu Bakr (ra) in the same two matters; he imposed the
rule stipulating that the triple divorce is considered as three and he also
distributed the wealth among the Muslims according to their seniority in Islam
and according to their needs rather than distributing equally. The Muslims duly
followed him in this and the judges and the governors implemented the rules he
had adopted. Then, Umar (ra) adopted a rule stipulating that the land conquered
in war is a spoil for Bayt al-Mal (the State’s treasury), not for the
fighters, and that the land should remain with its owners and should not be
divided among the fighters or among the Muslims. The governors and the judges
duly complied and implemented the rule that he had adopted.

It was in this manner that all of the rightly guided Khulafaa’
proceeded with respect to adoption of opinions, ordering people to abandon
their Ijtihad and the rules which they had acted upon, and instead
adhere to that which the Khalifah had adopted. So the Ijma’ of
the Companions was established on two matters; the first is the right of
adoption and the second is the obligation of acting upon what the Khalifah
adopts. Famous Shari’ah principles were derived based on this Ijmaa’
of the Companions. These are:“The Sultan reserves the right to effect as
many judgements as the problems which arise”,“The order of the Imam resolves the
disagreement”and“The order of the Imam
is binding”.

The evidence for adopting one
Islamic opinion is the fact that there are different Islamic opinions regarding
one single matter; hence, in order to act upon the Shari’ah rule in any
matter it is imperative to adopt a specific Islamic opinion for it. This is so
because the Shari’ah rules, which represent the address of the
Legislator related to the actions of the worshippers, have come in the Quran
and in the narrations, and many of these can have a number of possible meanings
according to the Arabic language and according to Shari’ah. For that
reason, it is natural and inevitable that people differ in their understanding
of the address of the Legislator and that this difference in understanding
reaches the level of disparity and contradiction in the intended meaning. Thus,
it is inevitable to have different and contradictory understandings of the same
matter. Because of this, there could be a host of different and contradictory
opinions in a single matter. So when the Messenger of Allah said at the battle of
Ahzab: “None of you should pray ‘Asr except in Bani Quraythah”
(recorded by Al-Bukhari through Ibn Umar), some understood that he was urging
haste and so they prayed on their way to Bani Quraythah, while others
understood that he had literally ordered them
to pray ‘Asr in Bani Quraythah; therefore, they delayed praying ‘Asr
until they reached their destination. When the Messenger of Allah heard of this, he
approved both understandings, and there are many verses and narrations similar
to this.

The difference of opinion in
single matters makes it incumbent upon the Muslims to adopt one opinion from
these various opinions since all of them are Shari’ah rules and the rule
of Allah (swt) in one single matter regarding one person is not multiple. Therefore,
it is imperative to choose one single rule from the Shari’ah in order to
act upon. Hence, the Muslim’s adoption of a specific Shari’ah rule is
necessary and inevitable when he or she undertakes the action since
undertaking the action obliges the Muslim
to accomplish it according to the Shari’ah rule. The obligation of
acting according to the Shari’ah rule, whether this was a Fard
(obligatory), Mandub (recommended), Haram (forbidden), Makruh (despised) or
Mubah
(permitted) makes it incumbent upon the Muslim to adopt a specific Shari’ah
rule. Therefore, it is obligatory upon every Muslim to adopt a specific Shari’ah
rule when taking rules for actions, irrespective of whether he or she was a Mujtahid
or a Muqallid (someone who follows the opinion of a scholar in an issue
rather than deriving it themselves) or whether they were the Khalifah or
other than the Khalifah.

With respect to the Khalifah, it is imperative
for him to adopt a host of specific rules according to which he assumes the
management of peoples’ affairs. Hence, it is necessary for him to adopt certain
rules pertaining to what is of a general nature to all the Muslims in terms of
matters of government and authority such as Zakat, levies, Kharaj
(land tax), foreign relations and everything that is related to the unity of
the State and ruling.

However, his adoption of the rules is subject to
scrutiny. If the Khalifah’s managing of the people’s affairs were
subject to adopting specific Islamic rules, then in this case the adoption
would be obligatory upon the Khalifah. This would be in concordance with
the Shari’ah principle stipulating that: “Whatever is necessary to
accomplish a duty is in itself a duty”, such as the signing of treaties. However, if the Khalifah
could manage peoples’ affairs in a specific matter according to the Islamic Shari’ah
rules without having to resort to the adoption of a specific rule in this
matter, then in this case the adoption would be permitted for him rather than
an obligation, such as Nisab Al-Shahadah (the minimum
number of witnesses in a testimony). In this case, it is permitted for him to
adopt or not to adopt, for in essence the adoption is permitted and not
obligatory; this is so because the Ijma’ of the Companions is that the Imam can adopt and there is no Ijma’
that the Imam must adopt. Therefore,
the adoption itself is permissible and it does not become obligatory unless the
obligatory management of peoples’ affairs cannot be accomplished except through
adoption. In such a case it then becomes obligatory so that the duty could be
accomplished.

1. Ghadeer Rooz: Dear Sheikh, nowadays poisonous substances are mixed with alcohol to prevent its intoxication, causing it to become a poisonous substance that is not intoxicating. The question here is whether the "toxic alcohol produced for perfumes" is impure (Najis), corrupting the purity of the clothing?

2. Abu Mahmoud Al-Khalili: Alcohol contained in perfume is of two types, one of it being intoxicating, known under the name of ethyl alcohol. Now the toxic alcohol is what is known under the name of methyl alcohol. Do they both share the same Islamic ruling?

3. Mustapha Abdul 'Aal: If it is not drunk, oh Sheikh?

4. Iklil Al-Jabal: Does this ruling apply to pharmaceuticals? Especially as many of the hand cleaning substances in all branches of health services are made up of alcohols, "ethanol + isopropanol", it is the same with mouthwashes. We use alcohol in some of the pharmaceutical productions as solvents or preservatives.

5. Manal Bader: Assalamu Alaikum dear Sheikh, Barak Allahu Feek as you kindly mentioned above that alcohol if consumed will result in a drunken state...whereas "SD" or denatured alcohol is used in perfumes, deodorants, lotions and facial creams... in these cases they cannot be consumed internally (due to the change of its chemical state). What is the Hukm on their usage? In another situation, the fuel we use for our cars is also derived from alcohol; does this also fall under the Hukm of Haram? Jazak Allahu kul Khair and may Allah protect you.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatahu

The questions bear similarities, therefore I will brief the answer to them in the following manner:

1. Alcohol has a class called methyl, and I was told that it is not an intoxicant but a deadly poison. Spirit (methanol) is from the class of methyl, taken from sawdust of wood and others, and its drinking causes blindness and can lead to death within days. Based on this, methyl is not Khamr, and the ruling on Khamr is not applied to it in terms of impurity and prohibition, except in terms of the use of methyl as a poison according to the rule of causing damage. Ibn Majah reported from Ubadah Bin As-Samit:

"The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم ruled that there is no damage and no causation of harm."

2. Alcohol has another class called ethyl, which is used in fermented or distilled intoxicating drinks, and medical spirit is of this kind. Furthermore ethyl alcohol is used in the industry as a preservative for some materials, as a drying substance against moisture, as a solvent for some alkali and fats (lubricants), as an antifreeze, as a solvent for some drugs, as a solvent of aromatic substances such as cologne and perfumes, and involved in the manufacture of some carpentry materials. The usage is in three sections:

A. The area in which alcohol is used as a solvent only or as an additive to some materials. Such usage does not cause the alcohol to lose its essence or chemical features, rather it remains in its chemical composition and its intoxicating effect. Hence the usage of alcohol within this capacity is absolutely haram, such as the example of cologne. The usage of cologne is not permissible and it remains impure, because it contains impurity (Najasa) in its mixture and intoxicating alcohol is contained in it in its original form. Therefore it is a substance mixed with Khamr, and Khamr is impure, as proven through the Hadith of Al-Khoshani:

Ad-Daraqtani reported from Al-Khoshani, who said: "I said: Oh Messenger of Allah, we interact with the Mushrikeen and we do not have vessels other than their vessels." He said: "Then he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: 'Avoid it as much as you can, but if you do not find anything else, then rinse it with water, because water will restore its purity, then cook in it."

Hence the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

فَإِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورُهَا

"Because water restores its purity"

meaning this vessel was impure since it was filled with Khamr and it was purified after its rinsing. This proves that Khamr is impure. The question concerned vessels that were filled with Khamr, as in the narration of Al-Khanshi, reported by Abu Dawud from Abi Tha'laba Al-Khanshi, that he asked the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and said:

"We adjoin the people of the book while they cook pork in their pots and drink Khamr from their vessels."The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "If you find others than drink and eat from them. If you do not find others, then rinse them with water and eat and drink."

Both pork and Khamr are impure. Hence the vessel in which they are placed becomes impure. It has to be washed to restore its purity before its usage.

B. In another section, the essence of alcohol is changed, and it loses its chemical feature of intoxication. Alcohol and the other substances are transformed into new substances that have other chemical features than alcohol. It is not poisonous, hence it becomes a new substance that does not share the Hukm of Khamr and it is pure just like any other substance that falls under the rule "the original state in things is permissibility (Ibaha), as long as there is no prohibiting evidence."

C. In another section alcohol is changed in its essence and loses its intoxicating feature. It forms a new substance with the other substances with features different from alcohol. But these new substances are poisonous, thus falling under the ruling of poison: They are pure but their usage for drinking or causing harm with them to oneself or another is Haram.

3. Therefore if ethyl alcohol is mixed with other substances, then the ruling depends on whether it loses its intoxicating feature or not and whether the mixture is poisonous or not. This needs an investigation of the underlying reality by experts and specialists. If it is scientifically or practically proven that the mix is intoxicating, then it falls under the rule of Khamr, indicating that the ethyl alcohol has not lost its intoxicating feature in this mixture. Nevertheless if it is scientifically or practically proven that the mixture is no longer intoxicating nor that it is poisonous, it does not fall under the ruling of Khamr or poison. If it is scientifically proven that this mixture is no longer intoxicating but it remains poisonous, it does not fall under the ruling of Khamr but it falls under the ruling of poison.

Based on the aforementioned:

- Sister Ghadeer Rooz's question which says: "poisonous substances are mixed with alcohol to prevent its intoxication, causing it to become a poisonous substance that is not intoxicating".

The answer is: If it is confirmed by the specialists that the mixture in this state does not intoxicate but is poisonous, then it does not fall under the ruling on Khamr nor is it impure. Rather the ruling on poison is applied to it, such that its usage for drinking or causation of harm through it to others is Haram.

- Question of Brother Abu Mahmoud Al-Khalili which says: "Alcohol contained in perfume is of two types, one of it being intoxicating, known as ethyl alcohol. Now the toxic alcohol is what is known as methyl alcohol. Do they both share the same Islamic ruling?"

The answer is that they do not have the same ruling. The intoxicating substance falls under the ruling on Khamr, while the mixture containing poisonous methyl alcohol falls under the ruling on poison. Perfume, as relayed to me, does not contain methyl but ethyl alcohol. So please have this issue clarified by specialists, because the ruling depends on whether it is intoxicating or poisonous without causing intoxication.

If the result of the mixture is intoxicating, such as cologne; then, it falls under the ruling on Khamr. Khamr is forbidden under ten circumstances, not only if it is drunk. At-Tirmidhi reported from Anas Ibn Malik who said:

"The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم cursed ten in relation to Khamr: its producer, the one assigned with its production, the one who drinks it, the one who transports it, the one it is transported to, the one who serves it, the one who sells it, the one who eats from its profit, its buyer, and the one for whom it is purchased."

Any of these ten roles is Haram.

- Question of Iklil Al-Jabal: "Does this ruling apply to pharmaceuticals? Especially as many of the hand cleaning substances in all branches of health services are made up of alcohols, "ethanol + isopropanol", it is the same with mouthwashes. We use alcohol in some of the pharmaceutical productions as solvents or preservatives."

The answer is that the usage of alcohol in medicine, as well as the drug containing alcohol, fall under the ruling of permission, though it is undesirable (Makruh), the evidence for it being:

"I said: "Oh Messenger of Allah, on our land we have grapes which we squeeze and then drink from it". He said: "No." Therefore I revised by saying: "We use it to cure the ill." He said: "This is not a form of healing, rather it is a disease."

This is a prohibition of the use of impure or prohibited substances "Khamr" as a cure. But the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم authorized curing with the impure substance of camel's urine. Al-Bukhari reported from Anas (ra):

"People from 'Uraina came to Madina, and the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم authorized them to approach the camels of charity to drink from their milk and urine."

They came to Madina, i.e. its weather did not suit them so they fell ill. Therefore the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم authorized them to medicate with the camel's urine, which is impure. Also he صلى الله عليه وسلم authorized medication with Haram, such as the wearing of silk.

At-Tirmidhi and Ahmad reported, at- Tirmidhi's articulation by way of Anas (ra):

"Abdul Rahman Bin 'Auf and az-Zubair Bin 'Awam complained about rash that had befallen them to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and he allowed them shirts made of silk. He said: "I saw them in it."

These two Ahadith indicate that the prohibition in the Hadith of Ibn Majah is not absolute, rather that medication through impure and prohibited substances is undesirable (Makruh).

Therefore, the use of a medicine that contains alcohol is permitted, though undesirable (Makruh). It is better not to use alcohol in the pharmaceutical industry, but if used in the pharmaceutical industry then it falls under the Hukm of Makruh. Therefore if the patient takes a medication containing alcohol then it is Makruh. All of this applies only if the mixture containing alcohol is a medication according to the opinion of specialists and not something else.

- Question of Sister Manal Bader: "Assalamu Alaikum dear Sheikh, Barak Allahu Feek as you kindly mentioned above that alcohol if consumed will result in a drunken state...Whereas "SD" or denatured alcohol is used in perfumes, deodorant, lotions and facial creams... in these cases they cannot be consumed internally (due to the change of its chemical state). What is Hukm on their usage? In another situation, the fuel we use for our cars is also derived from alcohol, does this also fall under the Hukm of Haram? Jazak Allahu kul Khair and may Allah protect you."

The answer is that you have mentioned some sort of alcohol-type "SD" or chemically treated alcohol, and you call it "toxic ethanol" and I do not know whether this product falls under ethyl or methyl. The broad outline is that if the result of the produced mixture is not intoxicating but poisonous, then it does not fall under the ruling on Khamr but under the ruling on poison. Therefore it is prohibited if used by a person to cause harm to oneself or another. And the produced substance is pure if no juristic evidence on its impurity exists.

However, if the result of the mixture is intoxicating, then it is under the ruling of Khamr and not only its drinking is forbidden, but all ten circumstances aforementioned.

As for the motor fuel mixed with alcohol, the broad outline is: If its reality is such that if drunk it causes intoxication, then it falls under the ruling on Khamr. If it is not intoxicating but poisonous, then the ruling on poison is applied to it. This has to be decided by the specialists.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

The following is the translation of an article from the book by Hizb ut-Tahrir entitled 'Introduction to the Constitution and the necessary evidences for it' which is the explanation of its draft constitution for the Khilafah state. This draft translation is from the second edition published in 2009 which was updated from the original published in 1963. Numerous brigades in Syria have agreed to the implementation of this constitution after the removal of the corrupt system that has brutally suppressed the people for decades.

Article 2

Dar Al-Islam
(Islamic Abode) is
the territory where the rules of Islam are implemented and its security is upheld by Islam. Dar Al-Kufr (abode of disbelief) is the territory where the
rules of Kufr are implemented or its security is upheld by other than the security of Islam.

Dar has several
meanings:

Linguistically: “abode”, such as His (swt)
words:“So We
caused the earth to swallow him and his abode place”
(TMQ 28:81) and “way-station”,
and every place that a people settle is their Dar. Such as His words:“So the
earthquake seized them and they lay (dead), prostrate in their homes” (TMQ 7:91), and it means: “city”. Sibawayh stated: “This Dar is a beautiful
city and “abode and place” such as His words:“And
excellent indeed will be the abode (i.e. Paradise) of the Muttaqun” (TMQ 16:30)”. In the same
manner, it metaphorically means “tribe”, such as the narration of Abu
Hamid Al-Sa’adi in Bukhari
from the Messenger who said:“Truly the best tribe (Dar) of the Ansar is the
tribe of Bani Najjar…”

And Dar can be adjoined to
the names of things such as His (swt) words “I shall show you the home (Dar) of Al-Fasiqun” (TMQ 7:145),“And
excellent indeed will be the abode (i.e. Paradise) of the Muttaqûn” (TMQ 16:30), “But
they killed her. So he said: “Enjoy yourselves in your homes for three days.
This is a promise (i.e. a threat) that will not be belied.” (TMQ 11:65),and His (swt) words:“And He
caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches”. (TMQ 33:27). And similarly in
the narration of Buraydah in Muslim where the
Messenger of Allah said,“…Then invite them to move from their
household to that of the Muhajirin (emigrants)” and the narration of Salima
Bin Nufail from Ahmad that he
said:“the centre of the believers’ abode is
as-Sham”

And it could be adjoined to
meanings such as His (swt) words:“and caused their people to dwell in the
house of destruction? “ (TMQ
14:28). And His words:“Who, out of His Grace, has
lodged us in a home that will last forever” (TMQ 35:35). And in the narration of Ali (ra) from Ibn Asakir with a Hasan Sahih chain, and in Tirmidhi: The
Messenger of Allah said to me:“May Allah have mercy upon
Abu Bakr, he married his daughter to me and carried me to the abode of
migration (Dar-Al-Hijrah)”. And the narration of Ibn Abbas in Daraqutni
saying: The Messenger of Allah said:“If the slave leaves the
abode of Shirk (Dar-Al-Shirk) before his master, then he is free, and if he
leaves after him, then he is returned to him,
and if a woman leaves the abode of Shirk before her husband, she can marry whom she
pleases, and if she leaves after him, then she is returned to
him”

And the Shari’ah adjoined the term Dar to two words from meanings
– being: Islam and Shirk. Tabarani
has a version of the previously mentioned narration of Salima Bin Nufail in the Musnad
al-Shamiyin with the words “the centre of the abode of Islam (Dar Al-Islam) is ash-Sham”. So, the word Dar here is added to Islam. And
likewise,Al-Mawardi narrated in
al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya and in al-Hawi al-Kabir that the Messenger of Allah said “Whatever is in the abode of Islam
is prohibited, and whatever is in the abode of Shirk is permitted” in
respect to the sanctity of blood and wealth in the abode of Islam…except by its
right in agreement with the rules of the Shari’ah,
and with respect to the absence of sanctity of the abode of Shirk (the abode of war “Dar Al-Harb”) in the sitution of actual
war, as in the rules regarding fighting and booty….in agreement with the rules
of the Shari’ah. This division
encompasses the whole world, so there is not a part from it which falls outside
of either the abode of Islam (Dar Al-Islam) or the abode of Shirk, or
in other words the abode of Kufr or abode of war (Dar Al-Shirk, Dar Al-Kufr, Dar Al-Harb).

The
abode is considered an abode of Islam if it fulfils two conditions:

Firstly: that the security is upheld by the Muslims,
according to the evidence that he said to his companions in Makkah “Truly, Allah made
brothers for you and an abode for you to be safe in”. This abode is the
Dar al-hijrah mentioned in the narration of ‘Ali already mentioned from
Ibn ‘Asakir, and in the narration of Aaisha (ra) in al-Bukhari in which the
Messenger of Allah said:“I have been shown the abode of your
emigration”.
And the evidence that he and his companions did not emigrate to Madinah
until he was sure about the presence of protection and
security; Al-Hafiz said in Al-Fath, Bayhaqi narrated through a
strong chain from Al-Sha’bi and Al-Tabarani connected it from the
narration of Abu Musa Al-Ansari who said:“The Messenger of Allah set off with his uncle
al-‘Abbas to meet 70 of the Ansar at al-‘Aqabah, and Abu Umama said to him –
Asad Bin Zurara – O Muhammad ask for your Lord and yourself whatever you want,
then he informed us of what reward we will have. He said: I ask you for my Lord,
to worship Him and do not associate anything else with Him, and I ask you for
myself and my companinos to accommodate use, and support us, and protect us
from what you protect yourselves. They said: What is for us? He said: Paradise. They
said: What you asked for is yours”.

And the evidence related by Ahmad from
Ka’ab Bin M’alik through a Sahih chain, that the Messenger of Allah said:“I pledge to you that you protect me
from that which you protect your women and children from. So al-Baraa Bin
Ma’ror took him by his hand and said Yes, by the One who sent you with the
Truth, we will most certainly protect you from that which we protect our
people, and so give us the pledge oh Messenger of Allah ,
we are people of wars and strong disposition, and we inherit this from our
forefathers”. And in a Sahih narration by Ahmad from Jaber that he said in the pledge of ‘Aqabah “…and to
give support to me and protect me from whatever you protect yourselves, your
wives and your children from when I come to you, and you will have Paradise”.
And in the Dala’il Al-Nabuwa by Al-Bayhaqi, with a strong,
good chain from ‘Ubadah Bin Samit who said “And to give support to the
Messenger of Allah from that which we
protect ourselves, our wives and our children when he arrives to us at Yathrib,
and we would have Paradise”.

The Prophet refused to emigrate to any place which did not
have security, power and protection. Al-Bayhaqi narrated through
a Hasan chain from ‘Ali that the
Messenger of Allah said to the Shayban b. Tha’labah tribe:“You have not replied badly
since you expressed the truth, and the Deen of Allah is not given support
except by those who can protect it from all sides”. This was after they had
offered to support him with respect to the Arabs while excluding the Persians.

Secondly: That the rules of Islam are
implemented therein. This is from the evidence of al-Bukhari from Ubada Bin
Samit who said: “The Messenger of Allah called
us and we took the oath of allegiance to him. Among the injunctions he made
binding upon us was: Listening and obedience (to the Amir) in our pleasure and
displeasure, in our adversity and prosperity, even when somebody is given
preference over us, and without disputing the delegation of powers to a man
duly invested with them except when you see clear Kufr (disbelief) which
you have proof from Allah”. And listening to and obeying the Messenger of Allah is with regards to his orders and
prohibitions, in other words in respect to the implementation of laws. Another
evidence is what Ahmad narrated, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih collection and Abu ‘Ubayd
in al-Amwal by ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Amru from the Prophet who said: “The emigration is two –
emigration of the one who is settled and the nomad, as for the nomad he obeys
if ordered and responds if called, as for the one who is settled they have the
greater test and reward”. The angle of inference is clear from his
words “he obeys if ordered
and responds if called”, since the desert was
part of the abode of Islam (Dar Al-Islam) even if it was not the abode
of emigration (Dar al-hijrah). And accordingly with the evidence of the
narration of Wathilah b. al-Asqa’ in
al-Tabarani, al-Haythami said through a
chain whose people are all trustworthy that the Messenger of Allah said to him “And the emigration of the
nomad is to return to your nomadity, and to listen and obey in your displeasure
and pleasure, and your adversity and prosperity, even if someone is given
preference over you…” and the evidence that Ahmad narrated with a Sahih chain from Anas: “I
followed some youths saying that Muhammad has come, so I followed and did not
see anything. Then they say – Muhammad has come, so I followed and did not see
anything. He said: Until Muhammad and his companion Abu
Bakr came, and we were part of the fervency of Madinah. Then they sent a man
from the people of Madinah to make the Ansar aware of them, and so they were
met by about five hundred from the Ansar reaching them. The Ansar said: Proceed
in safety and with authority. And so the Messenger of
Allah and his companion came
from between them. And so the people of Madinah came out, including the women
overlooking from their households saying which of them is he, which of them is
he?”. This narration has the evidence for both
of the two conditions of security and the implementation of the laws. With
respect to the security – this is proven from the presence of five hundred from
the Ansar saying proceed in safety and the Messenger confirmed their words. In the same manner he
confirmed their words that the two of them would be obeyed. Accordingly the
security and obedience were fulfilled in the abode of emigration (Dar
al-Hijrah) and if they had not been fulfilled the Prophet would not have emigrated.

These two conditions, the fulfillment of
security and obedience in the implementation of the laws, were pledged upon by
the Ansar in al-’Aqabah. Al-Bayhaqi narrated with a strong chian from ‘Ubadah
b. Samit who said “…We pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah to listen and obey
when we were busy and inactive, and to spend in times of difficulty and ease,
and upon enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, and upon saying the truth
regarding Allah and not fearing the blame of the blamers, and upon us
supporting the Messenger of Allah whenever he came to
Yathrib against whatever we protected ourselves, our wives and our sons from,
and we would have Paradise. This was the pledge that we gave to the Messenger
of Allah ”. And the security is that
of the Muslims, as made clear by his words “and upon us supporting the
Messenger of Allah whenever he came to
Yathrib against whatever we protected ourselves, our wives and our sons from,
and we would have Paradise.”

This meaning was clear from
the letter which he wrote between the Emigrants and the Ansar, and made peace with the Jews therein and made a convenant
with them. This occurred in the first year of the emigration. This is from the
account of Ibn Ishaq and it has been called the sahifa. It says: “In
the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful. This is a document from
Muhammad the Prophet between the believers
and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them
and struggled alongside them that they are one community (Ummah) to the exclusion of
all men…Believers are protectors one to the other to the exclusion of
outsiders…The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses.
Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this
document…If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it
must be referred to Allah and to Muhammad the Messenger of Allah ”.

Based upon this, the abode cannot be an
abode of Islam unless it fulfilled the conditions that the security was in the
hands of the Muslims and that the laws of Islam were implemented, and if one of
these two conditions ceased, or was not fulfilled, such as the security falling
into the hands of the disbelievers or that the rule of Al-Taghut was implemented amongst the
people, the abode would become an abode of polytheism (Dar Al-Shirk) or disbelief (Dar Al-Kufr). It is not a condition
that both of these conditions are absent for the abode to transform to an abode
of polytheism, rather it is sufficient that one of them is absent for that to
occur. The abode being one of disbelief does not mean that all of its inhabitants are
disbelievers and if the abode was one of Islam it does not follow that all of
its inhabitants are Muslims. Rather the meaning of the term abode (Dar) here is the Shari’ah
terminology (Shar’ireal meaning)
in other words that the Shari’ah
is what gives it this meaning, like the terms prayer (Salah) and fasting (Sawm) and similar from the Shar’i
realities
.

Based upon this, the term
could be applied upon a land where most of the inhabitants are Christians for
example, but if it was part of the Islamic State it would be referred to as an
abode of Islam (Dar Al-Islam). This is because the rules applied therein
are the Islamic laws and the security of the land would be by the security of
Islam as long as it remained part of the Islamic State.

And in the same manner, any
land where the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims but it was part of a
State which did not rule by Islam, nor was it secured by a Muslim army but
rather by that of the disbelievers, then the term abode of disbelief (Dar Al-Kufr) would be applied to it
despite most of its inhabitants being Muslims.

So, the meaning of abode (Dar) here is the Shar’i reality
(legislative meaning) without regard to where the Muslims were a majority or
minority where the term is applied; rather, it is with regard to the
implemented laws and the established security for its inhabitants. In other
words, the meaning of abode is
taken from the legislative (Shar’i) texts which explained this meaning, in
the same way that the meaning of the word Salah is taken from the
legislative texts which explained its meaning. And in the same manner all the Shar’i real meanings have their meaning derived
from the legislative texts and not from the linguistic meaning of the words.

Followers

Subscribe To

Please note that not all posts are based on the views of the administrators of this site. Please feel free to publish or circulate any material from this site, we would appreciate that you mention it's source. We endeavour to reply to questions posted through the comments on this site however we are not able to respond to all. Although we may reply to the questions asked based on the limited information given, for legislative questions in particular we advise all brothers and sisters to go to a trusted faqih (jurist) knowledgeable in the subject and to ask the question to them explaining the reality of it in a proper manner. This is especially important for complex issues.